If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It can be extended to most feats.
Feats are really badly written, it seems authors are scared to write decent feats and yet have no problems writing broken spells. Most core feats are almost useless (Tier 6 if you prefer).

Weapon Specialization +2 damage VS Fireball 1d6 damage per level....ok, there is a cap. But the point should be clear.

Endurance ... you get 3 HP. WHAT? My character will have 7 feats in all his career and I should use one for 3 HP?!? No, seriously... do they play tested anything?
If it were something like 1 HP per level (min 3) my Wizard might think about it...

Of course this is the real problem of the Fighter class. Bad feats, bad class that lives of feats.

1. Endurance doesn't give any HP.
2. I'd like to see a breakdown of how "most" core feats - where we get metamagic, item creation, power attack, and natural spell, among others - are "almost useless".

Also, regarding Spot checks, I'm not quite sure if I'm just not reading the rules correctly... or if an average person cannot see another average person beyond 200ft (60 metres) even if the latter isn't even trying to hide (Spot check +0, Hide Check 0, Distance penalty -21).

So you know, university Physics D&D 3.5 Optimization is essentially three seven years of this discussion among like-minded enthusiasts. Done with supercomputers, access to the textsplatbook collections of five continents and thirty languages with thousands of classes, prestige classes, feats and spells.
On four hours sleep a night.
With no sex.
You're not going to find the loophole these guys missed.

The core book also doesn't mention what happens when you lose the requirements for a PrC, so it could be argued that there is nothing in core for CA and CW to overrule.

Fun stuff: History of the game.

In D&D 3.0, the DMG does not include the Dragon Disciple PrC - that was found in a different book. Additionally, the 3.0 DMG PrC header had the same clause that shows up in the 3.5 Complete Arcane and the 3.5 Complete Warrior books.

In D&D 3.5, the DMG inludes the Dragon Disciple PrC... and the DMG PrC header does not include the troublesome clause that shows up in Complete Arcane and Complete Warrior.

The clause was specifically removed from the DMG in the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition. Complete Arcane and Complete Warrior? They were very early books in 3.5, that mostly functioned as compilations of various items from 3.0 sources with minor edits.

As nearly as I can tell, the presence of that troublesome clause is an editing error.

Of course, by the time I finish this post, it will already be obsolete. C'est la vie.

By RAW, Swordsages only get Wis to AC in light armor. (i.e. any other level of armor - including no armor at all - loses the bonus.)

Not sure what the issue is with Unarmed Swordsages, they seem playable. (though they would be hit even harder by the rule above.)

Originally Posted by Jack_Simth

As nearly as I can tell, the presence of that troublesome clause is an editing error.

I don't think it belongs in 3.5 either - but again, this is the "silly rules" thread.

Last edited by Psyren; 2011-09-11 at 05:13 PM.

Originally Posted by The Giant

But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?

Also, regarding Spot checks, I'm not quite sure if I'm just not reading the rules correctly... or if an average person cannot see another average person beyond 200ft (60 metres) even if the latter isn't even trying to hide (Spot check +0, Hide Check 0, Distance penalty -21).

The Swordsage's AC Bonus technically only applies when they are in light armour (and unencumbered while not using a shield). Strict reading of RAW does not grant them this bonus when they are actually unarmoured. Amusingly.

This is exacerbated with Unarmed Swordsages, who lose proficiency with light armour.

Edit: Swordsage'd. Fitting.

Last edited by NNescio; 2011-09-11 at 05:24 PM.

Originally Posted by kardar233

GitP: The only place where D&D and Cantorian Set Theory combine. Also a place of madness, and small fairy cakes.

It can be extended to most feats.
Feats are really badly written, it seems authors are scared to write decent feats and yet have no problems writing broken spells. Most core feats are almost useless (Tier 6 if you prefer).

I blame Fighter. The very existence of the class devalues the worth of melee feats.

There's 110 feats in the PHB. 16 of those are the +2/+2 skill feats and Skill Focus. So a bit over a tenth are almost completely pointless. Then there's the class that is merely 'really bad', often because you can get the same effect with something less valuable than a feat- the save boosters, Armor/shield proficiencies, and weapon proficiencies. 3 saves, 3 kinds of armor, 3 kinds of weapon (I *might* exempt Exotic Weapon Prof from this, but just because the Spiked Chain is pretty good. Everything else is a terrible return on a feat), 2 different shield proficiency feats. 11 more feats, and we're up to just shy of one quarter of the feats are what I'd call truly almost useless, in that you could pretty easily forget you ever took the feat, and probably strike the bonus it gave you off your sheet without noticing too much (actually, Toughness probably belongs here too. So 28 feats.)

And there's the stuff that *would* be useful, if the core mechanics worked differently/better- Great Cleave. Extra Turning/Improved Turning without really relevant things that work off Turning. Stunning Fist for everybody who isn't a Monk taking it as a bonus feat. Improved Overrun. Improved Counterspell. Eschew Materials. Spring Attack and Shot On The Run. Trample. Ride-By Attack. Combat Casting. Dodge and Mobility. The mechanics associated with all of these are either weak, dysfunctional, or generally irrelevant enough that it would take either dramatically more powerful feats or a system rewrite to make the associated feats useful. And now we're up to 42 feats that I would not consider worth using outside of builds carefully designed to abuse a certain ability (or that were forced into it by prestige classes, I'm lookin' at you Combat Casting and Skill Focus.)

And let's get into stuff that is actually kinda useful, but just completely fails to be worth a rare feat slot! How 'bout Endurance and Diehard? Whirlwind Attack? Run? Track (as somebody's sig says re: Rangers-"we were given a railroading tool and tricked into believing it was a class feature") Improved Feint? Widen Spell (even metamagic has a turkey in it!) Two-Weapon Defense? Point-blank Shot? Far Shot? 52 feats so far, not terribly far from a majority!

Thankfully, we're now into the realms of merely questionable feats, the stuff you take because it does something decent and you're stuck in Core so you don't have a better way to get these effects, it's required to make a poorly-supported concept work, or you just ran out of really good feats. (Note: This bit is strongly personal opinion.) This is the realm of your Weapon Focus and Specialization line. Spell X (Mastery/Focus/Penetration), Two-Weapon Fighting, and Rapid Reload also occupy this level. So that's.. 2 each for the Weapon stuff, 2 more for Spell Focus and Penetration, 3 TWF feats, and then Rapid Reload and Spell Mastery.. 13 more feats on the pile. 65 total. Well more than half the feats in the PHB are somewhere in between "Oh my gods why would you take that" and "well, I guess that's not completely terrible."

Edit: 109 feats. Forgot that Leadership is actually in a DMG sidebar. And I suppose I shouldn't be all that surprised that I'm not the only person who took the time to sort all those feats out.

I don't think it belongs in 3.5 either - but again, this is the "silly rules" thread.

True enough. Of course, with the availability of the Chaos Shuffle, the PHB II retraining rules, and the Psychic Reformation power, the clause also serves a purpose: If the feat cost is a balancing mechanism for stonger PrC's, then the ability to effectively remove the feat cost is a bad thing.

Of course, by the time I finish this post, it will already be obsolete. C'est la vie.

That one's at least arguable. Unarmed Swordsage says you get "the monk's unarmed strike progression". If you interpret this as gaining the "Unarmed Strike" class feature of the monk, there's no problem because the very first sentence of that gives you Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat.

Like 4X (aka Civilization-like) gaming? Know programming? Interested in game development? Take a look.

"Progression" typically means just the numbers, i.e. in this case, attack bonuses and iteratives.

So you know, university Physics D&D 3.5 Optimization is essentially three seven years of this discussion among like-minded enthusiasts. Done with supercomputers, access to the textsplatbook collections of five continents and thirty languages with thousands of classes, prestige classes, feats and spells.
On four hours sleep a night.
With no sex.
You're not going to find the loophole these guys missed.

I blame Fighter. The very existence of the class devalues the worth of melee feats.[...]
That's 59 out of PHB's 92 general feats. Then there are 17 metamagic or item creation feats.

You has been more restrictive than me (for example I set Cleave as useful), but I assume we agree on the main point.

I miss the point of the Fighter... isn't the opposite? Bad feats meant bad Fighter?

After all, with lots of Feats of the power of Shock Trooper (that become stronger with the BAB) or lots of Feats that give new ways to attack like the ``Zhentarim Soldier'' levels the Fighter might be interesting.

I don't think it's fair to highlight the rules they actually fixed with errata in this thread though. Give the devil it's due, and all that.

(Besides, there's more than enough that they didn't get around to )

Originally Posted by The Giant

But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?

Knowledge Devotion is the way of the Wizard of the Coast wanted to say:
- Weapon Focus is wrong, yes... Use this one.

I can't disagree, but just the way it works is poorly designed. My group uses this house rule:
If you identify the monster (DC = 10 + HD) then you gain +1 to-hit and damage
For every extra bit of information (for every 5 you exceed the identification DC) you gain another +1 to hit and damage.

To go with it, Ancestral Knowledge is house ruled not to be racially constrained.

What about Travel Devotion? You can move all your movement in a Immediate Action. It means you can avoid a fall jumping midair! Or do a double jump!

Well. I think that's okay. It is a kind of mini-teleport. There are lots of ways to do this.
What bugs me about most Devotion feats is that Clerics get so much more out of them. Right, because this class really needed more of a boost than any Mundane. oÔ
But well, it's bad game balance, not dysfunctional as such.

So you know, university Physics D&D 3.5 Optimization is essentially three seven years of this discussion among like-minded enthusiasts. Done with supercomputers, access to the textsplatbook collections of five continents and thirty languages with thousands of classes, prestige classes, feats and spells.
On four hours sleep a night.
With no sex.
You're not going to find the loophole these guys missed.